linux-kernel - Re: kernel BUG at kernel/cred.c:434!

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <5CB933C4.7000300@huawei.com>
Date:   Fri, 19 Apr 2019 10:34:44 +0800
From:   Yang Yingliang <yangyingliang@...wei.com>
To:     Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
CC:     Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, <john.johansen@...onical.com>,
        "chengjian (D)" <cj.chengjian@...wei.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, NeilBrown <neilb@...e.com>,
        Anna Schumaker <Anna.Schumaker@...app.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        "Xiexiuqi (Xie XiuQi)" <xiexiuqi@...wei.com>,
        Li Bin <huawei.libin@...wei.com>,
        "Jason Yan" <yanaijie@...wei.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Linux Security Module list 
        <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
        SELinux <selinux@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: kernel BUG at kernel/cred.c:434!



On 2019/4/19 10:04, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 10:50 PM Yang Yingliang
> <yangyingliang@...wei.com> wrote:
>> On 2019/4/18 8:24, Casey Schaufler wrote:
>>> On 4/17/2019 4:39 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
>>>> Since it looks like all three LSMs which implement the setprocattr
>>>> hook are vulnerable I'm open to the idea that proc_pid_attr_write() is
>>>> a better choice for the cred != read_cred check, but I would want to
>>>> make sure John and Casey are okay with that.
>>>>
>>>> John?
>>>>
>>>> Casey?
>>> I'm fine with the change going into proc_pid_attr_write().
>> The cred != real_cred checking is not enough.
>>
>> Consider this situation, when doing override, cred, real_cred and
>> new_cred are all same:
>>
>> after override_creds()    cred == real_cred == new1_cred
> I'm sorry, you've lost me.  After override_creds() returns
> current->cred and current->real_cred are not going to be the same,
> yes?
It's possible the new  cred is equal to current->real_cred and 
current->cred,
so after overrides_creds(), they have the same value.
>
>> after prepare_creds()     new2_cred
>> after commit_creds()     becasue the check is false, so cred ==
>> real_cred == new2_cred
>> after revert_creds()        cred == new1_cred, real_cred == new2_cred
>>
>> It will cause cred != real_cred finally.